I'm quite aware that a lack of a response does not mean anything one way or the other. I was simply dealing with Richard who did respond, in the present tense which was with sarcasm.
That said, it does not change my overall point regarding how being offended is a two way street.
Makes sense. I didn't see the earlier conversation being had and only jumped in at the pic, not knowing the two were related.
I agree that people are quick to use the Hitler comparison to an opposing candidate, then those same people get offended when the same is done with their candidate. Bush was compared to Hitler by the Democrats, Hillary and Bernie have been compared to Hitler by the Republicans, and now Trump is getting the same comparison by the Dems. In each case, the side doing the comparison has felt justified, and the opposing side has felt offended. In all of those cases, the comparison is inaccurate. Unless you're supporting Pol Pot or Idi Amin for political office, the comparison of your candidate to Hitler is just plain wrong, and it trivializes the destruction and death that Hitler caused.
Actually, I would guess that quite a few people (myself among them) were offended by your picture. Just because we didn't immediately speak up against it doesn't mean we don't have a problem with it.
I'm quite aware that a lack of a response does not mean anything one way or the other. I was simply dealing with Richard who did respond, in the present tense which was with sarcasm.
That said, it does not change my overall point regarding how being offended is a two way street.
Actually I would have thought that it would have been found to be offensive, at least in some little way. But I guess not.
Cuz, I am offended by the freely applied association of Hitler with Trump. But since no one has been offended by my little picture, I guess that I will have to become desensitized myself and use Hitler more often in my posts just to keep up with this newly born freedom of expression and association with our leaders and candidates for office, regardless of merit.
Actually, I would guess that quite a few people (myself among them) were offended by your picture. Just because we didn't immediately speak up against it doesn't mean we don't have a problem with it.
So, Arizona, which matters, went for Trump, and did so by a 23-percent margin that exceeded the +13 polls by 10 points. Utah, which doesn't matter much (I had Trump getting 17 delegates there, but he won't get any), went unanimously to Cruz. So, let's update the previous delegate math.
You may recall I originally stated this: If Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California, plus one state from the following list (Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin), he wins the nomination. Period. Nothing else matters.
Since then, he has won Florida, Missouri and Arizona, but lost Ohio. So, all he needs now, in practical terms, is Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California. Those are the three vital states, which the latest, but mostly outdated, polls currently show:
Pennsylvania: Trump +17
New Jersey: Trump +27
California: Trump +16
According to Fox News, after Arizona, Trump has 739 delegates. There are 238 proportional votes to be distributed; due to his strength in New York we can safely expect Trump to win at least 126 of them. That brings him to 865, which means he will need 372 out of the remaining 539 winner-takes-all delegates, or 69 percent of them.
That is three points fewer than he needed before this week; Cruz's outperformance in Utah didn't accomplish anything because Trump's strength in New York outweighs Cruz's in Utah.
As far as states go, to mathematically close out the nomination, he'll need, at a minimum, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Indiana, and one smaller state. If Cruz or Kasich can't win at least one of those four states, (and two if one of them isn't California), Trump will hit the required 1,237 delegates.
Of course, none of this takes into account the potential game-changing endorsement of Ted Cruz by Jeb Bush. You may want to consider the possibility that Cruz will withdraw from the race and join a monastery in Borneo. And, of course, the endorsement demonstrates the intrinsic falseness of the contention that the GOPe hates and fears Ted Cruz over all.
Actually I would have thought that it would have been found to be offensive, at least in some little way. But I guess not.
Cuz, I am offended by the freely applied association of Hitler with Trump. But since no one has been offended by my little picture, I guess that I will have to become desensitized myself and use Hitler more often in my posts just to keep up with this newlyborn freedom of expression and association with our leaders and candidates for office, regardless of merit.
Actually I would have thought that it would have been found to be offensive, at least in some little way. But I guess not.
Cuz, I am offended by the freely applied association of Hitler with Trump. But since no one has been offended by my little picture, I guess that I will have to become desensitized myself and use Hitler more often in my posts just to keep up with this newly born freedom of expression and association with our leaders and candidates for office, regardless of merit.
No real difference, just a bunch of f'ing hypocrites and apologists. And I don't like Trump (or Clinton).
I am not a fan either.
If you don't want to see a difference, then you won't.
Next time in a fancy restaurant eat with your hands instead of using the cutlery, and just say it makes no real difference when people give you that odd look...
